Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

I would say that 2009 bucks a general linear downward trend. Not sure of the reason, but I am sure someone better informed than myself can offer a possible explaination. The important point is that increasing passenger numbers, based on historical data should not prove to be impossible.

 

In 2011 new drainage works at Arley, plus some works elsewhere meant the railway was not fully open until the end of March so this needs to be taken into account when comapring the 2010 & 2011 figures.

 

I doubt if many heritage railways can save their way out of the financial troubles they find themselves in. There may be some easy wins if costs are not already slashed to the bone, but ultimately it is the income side (from whatever sources - fares, shops, subs, donations, share issues etc) that has to be boosted, as much of the costs tend to be stubbornly fixed - unless drastic measures such as shortening lines are contemplated (which brings its own challenges such as decreased volunteer attraction). For many years, "enthusiastic railwaymen" (to use Allan Garraway's expression) have been fortunate in being able to get third parties to pay for them having fun, but it does seem that we are now in a new world whereby for many railways, the membership, active and passive, are going to have to pay materially more to go on enjoying the benefits. While appeals for specific projects have long been a feature, I suspect we are at the stage where some lines are no longer washing their faces on operating costs and will need to explore a more substantial regular contribution from members, whether through increased subs or otherwise.

 

That's debatable. Given the data we have, with 2006 and 2007 numbers missing (and 2007 would clearly be anomalous anyway), but high passenger numbers in 2005 and 2009, it is feasible that 2009 is a blip on an otherwise downward trend that started from 2005. Equally, it is possible that a basic figure of around 240-250k passengers that was sustained from 2005 to 2009; and then the downward trend started after that point. With the data we have, either scenario is possible. What I don't think you can do is be categorically sure that one or the other of those scenarios is correct, though obviously they have very different implications with how one might then want to paint a story about the management of the railway. If, like G-FG, you believe the problems started after 2005, the data can be used to "prove" that point. If alternatively you believe things were fine until the recession really kicked in around 2009/10 - well, the data support that view as well.

I'd agree with that.

Tom

 

Unfortunately I will not be at the Q&A on 12/01 but it may be interesting to see just how bullish the chairman is. Whatever is the case the SVR cannot survive, let alone develop, on continually contracting passenger numbers. When the trend started is immaterial but it certainly seems to be the case.

 

And in 2008, the line didn't fully re-open till Good friday which was the 21st March.

 

Thanks for adding the earlier figures, I don't have them.

Something I intended to add to the passenger figure numbers, but omitted to do so, is that the 2011 passengers were down 11k, but "attracting different audiences with a higher yield" increased traffic income by £180k (9%)

Cutting costs has been mentioned, the railway cut £298k in 2011.

The passenger numbers argument is an interesting one. *Part of* the railway's argument against simply seeking to increase numbers is that they don't just fill empty trains but are attracted when and for the same reason other passengers do, e.g. sunny weather. They can overfill better loaded ones (2009 brought overcrowding complaints), which necessitates bigger engines and means more strain on coaches, infrastructure, rolling stock, coal, water, wear and tear. That does open up a whole new area that the railway - demand pricing - such as with the Santa trains and the new family pass not valid on special events.


Patrick

 

This tends to confirm my point higher up about income from passengers rather than passenger numbers. I must say I prefer to travel at quieter times, but when travelling (which I do at least once a month), the only real complaint I ever overhear in any appreciable quantity is about overcrowding.

 

Like Michael I tend to travel at quieter times, but even then rarely find a train that is other than well filled. Problem is I suppose that certain trains are popular for timing reasons, eg the 10-25/10-35 morning KDR departure. I turned up one sunny Autumn Saturday in 2012 and for the first time actually elected not to travel, when I saw Sir Keith Park on five coaches, and it was obvious from the numbers at Kidderminster that this service was going to be very crowded--indeed it was, to the extent that I understand it was difficult to board at Bewdley. An "unannounced" coach party made it worse, why do the SVR allow "unannounced" coach parties, they should be pre-booked so that adequate rolling stock is provided.
On taking this matter up via the "feedback" facility I was told that the short formation that Saturday was due to a "rolling stock problem earlier in the week". In my mind that just made matters worse, they had all week to sort out a proper length formation and didn't bother, despite a good weather forecast for the weekend!!

I suppose with the prospect of two Bulleid Pacifics in the service fleet on the horizon, 7 and 8 coach formations are not a problem, as they can be with smaller locos, but maybe having "fill-in" shorter trains in the timetable to supplement the popular departures then raises the issue of more engines in service, more crews, and at the northern end of the line track occupancy, given that passenger trains cannot cross at Highley. Talking of Highley, I wonder if the SVR have considered additional services Kidderminster to Highley, for the engine house, these could be the shorter rakes/smaller engines, and take some of the pressure off the full-line trains. Until the new facilities emerge at Bridgnorth, Highley is a popular destination, and the station gets very crowded. Additional timetabled trains at weekends running Kidderminster- Highley would ease the pressure.

Anyway, back to the present, its a lovely Spring-like weekend, so a visit to ride on the last weekend is on the cards!!

46118

 

I anticipate that these two Q & A’s will be interesting if not revealing?

Plato


_________________
Are you in the dark?
Plato: life (The Classics Pages)

 

Rarely are they unknown, more often than not they have booked late or they has been an error in the parties office, and the information hasn't passed on to booking office/TTIs. It would be nice if they wasn't any of these but we are all human.
I have the feeling that the addition of diesel hauled/DMU onto the A timetable is an attempt at doing something about the Highley problem. Certainly the A timetable needs a bit more flexibility for the passenger, and the DMU (which it will be for the winter months as none of the diesels have steam heat) goes to Highley first.

 

Maybe Simon, but they do have a large carriage shed at Kidderminster full of carriages, and it wasn't peak season so plenty to choose from. Mr Mee who responded to me did say earlier in the week, which given it was daily running to my mind meant "earlier", and with daily running there were people around.

Anyway, moving on, what Kje7812 says is interesting, and I see that in the "low season" table A timetable for 2013 there is a diesel turn departing KDR at 11-30 for Highley, arrive 12-06, returning at 2-05 pm. Ideal for those wanting to go to the Engine House for lunch and a look round. ("Chef's Specials" start daily at 12-00 !!!)

46118

 

Just wanting to clarify, the 11.30 goes to Highley, detrains and moves to the sliding, waits for a train to go by and the carries on to Bridgnorth where it forms the next departure.

 

Yes, sorry I misread the timetable. The diesel turn rests at Highley from 12-06 to 2-05, then proceeds to Bridgnorth, and returns full-line from Bridgnorth at 3-15.

My original point about getting to the Engine House for lunch via Table A remains valid, otherwise you can only arrive from the South at either 11-16 or 1-01.

46118

 

Yes, people are pressed to get their money's worth especially if they are after the first train from Kiddy on (last year's) A, first 2 on B and first 3 on C.
On the subject of set formations, there's a while variation of loadings. BS2 for instance can be busy on the first down till Highley, may quiet down or stay the same leaving if lots of people get on. It's first up trip and second down are usually quieter while the second up is usually very quiet. So it may need to 7 or 8 for the beginning of the day but not for much of it. Of course coach parties can change this. As another poster said the svr have commited themselves to running the services so a lot of the costs are almost fixed, so anything that can encourage people to come would be a good idea for 'off-peak' services.

 

GF-G would nominate this as the defining post of this thread, not just for troubled old SVR but for the whole movement. I'm going to get it embroidered on a tea towel.

The justification for public money to support a small number of people who want to play trains on a bigger scale than their attic or garden permits has always been dubious, except where there are regeneration benefits through tourism - and that throws back upon the train players an overriding civic duty to maximise numbers and spend on the line and in the adjacent rail corridor. SVR and HRA President and all round Good Egg Lord Faulkner says that every £1 of revenue through the SVR farebox injects £2 into the local economy. We have to believe him.

In 2013 SVR will fall short of the number it is known to be capable of when managed properly by 50,000. Each of those - the "missing believed lost" - is £10 not coming through the ticket office window and £20 not pumping into the local economy. So, £500,000 missing from the railway budget, and double that in the shops and hotels. That missing £500,000 = the morally correct answer to the Loco Agreement "can't pay/won't pay" Crisis. Simples!

West Midlands always suffers hard from periodic consumer confidence collapses but it doesn't freeze up altogether. Selfridges has just posted very good results for their Bull Ring Store. But then Selfridge push their Directors and managers for results - and eventually if sales head south for long enough out come the P45s. A General Manager who had never even held sales steady one year against another for four years - as is the case with the current SVR GM - would be gone without trace. One week's salary per year of service. End of.

Regards

GF-G

 

The Talyllyn Railway has recently written to all it's members asking them to set up a monthly standing order in favour of the railway - just to pay the day to day operating costs - not capital investment. It's passenger decline has been catastrophic albeit that it has been going on for a long time - it peaked in 1973 and is now carrying only about 35% of the peak year's numbers. It has also lumbered itself with a costly great white elephant of a new station building at Tywyn Wharf. In that case it's fairly easy to see the reasons for the decline in business - the Mid Wales B & B and caravan holiday market upon which the TR was almost totally dependant (along with a now disappeared coach party trade) has decamped abroad for better value and better weather.

It's more difficult to see the reasons for the more recent decline in SVR passenger numbers - is it the current recession which allows people to hope that things will improve if and when the economy improves, or is it something more structural?

 

Interesting about the Talyllyn. Didn't the NYMR have something in either 2012 or 2011 about asking passengers to make a donation to pay for loco coal? However you look at it, running steam-hauled passenger services in this day and age is not in itself a profitable operation.

Maybe in the future the "standard" fare on a heritage line will be for diesel haulage, and the "premium" fare for steam?

 

Whilst I don't have exact figures to hand SVR passenger numbers declined during the previous recession in the '80s only to recover later when the economy improved. I still find it baffling that with a 13,000 strong "sales force" in the membership this major asset has not been harnessed and motivated by the management of the railway to go out & SELL. Previous posts re that suggesting overcrowding are based on rather flimsy logic and even if in part true would surely be the right sort of problem to be seeking a further solution for!

The TR situation of asking the membership to pay basic running costs does'nt sound like a long term plan which is likely to suceed particularly when there are so many other similar organisations to belong to not making the same request.